Actuance is probably the most important intrinsic lens phenomenon to create the 3D effect.
But honestly, format size in my experience has a lot more to do with it. The reason is that gradual transitions of color and tone are recorded in such tremendous detail and with such subtlety, that the picture really comes to life. Medium and especially large format exhibit this effect almost as a routine.
4x5 Ilford FP4, and Schneider 90 f/5.6 Super Angulon XL
There are certain tricks you can do to achieve this magical 3D look. If you have a view camera, you can tilt the plane of focus to make objects appear to come towards you and out of the photo.
Here's one that has generated many 3D look comments. Sinar Norma 4x5 + Graflex 135/4.7 @ f/8 with 9x12cm TMAX developed in 1:25 Rodinal. Used what I think was something like 10-15 degrees of forward tilt on the rear standard (That puny Graflex doesn't seem to cover very much).
True Graham, I opend a Window in my Atelier and made these shots very quickly. I am glad others chimed in and posted their samples and explanaitions.
I think some of the posted pictures have the 3d look and for obvious reasons. If I look at John R's 3 pictures the cowboy and the horse looks very much 3d! The bird with the looong legs and the one with the antlers dont work so well IMO
I've never seen any 3d effect except with stereo photography. I've seen contrast, micro contrast, bokeh, accutance etc but nothing that made me think I was looking at anything other than a flat image.
A lot of people are showing this 3D look using photos that have shallow DOF, but I think it's actually even more evident in well-chosen shots with infinite DOF. I can tell you that the 8x10 contact print I made yesterday, with infinite focus, absolutely has that 3D effect.
DrPablo wrote:
A lot of people are showing this 3D look using photos that have shallow DOF, but I think it's actually even more evident in well-chosen shots with infinite DOF. I can tell you that the 8x10 contact print I made yesterday, with infinite focus, absolutely has that 3D effect.
My first guess is it is the transition between the focus plane to out-of-focus -- But I think you are also correct. There is something working in 8x10 contact prints (and large format) that 35mm has a difficult time achieving (regardless of resolution, ppi, etc). But some 35mm does exhibit a 3d effect. Maybe there are several approaches
TeamSK jay wrote:
It seems logical that a 3D effect is achieved by tricking the brain into viewing a flat 2D image as though it is being seen in real life 3D with your own eyes. When you look at something only the area you are directly looking at is in focus, other areas are out of focus. So an out of focus rendering which looks the same as seen in real life would seem to add the most to the illusion.
That's what I think, but I'd throw in that it is all relevant to viewing distances and size of the print or monitor image. I have seen prints that look '3-D' and look totally flat when enlarged further and reviewed up close.
'Too much' bokeh or totally blowing out the background IMO kills the effect. You still need to see what is there as you normally would with your peripheral vision, which is more acute than most would think.
For relatively compressed landscapes, bokeh can be eliminated (or almost eliminated) and still look 3-D, because that is how it would be rendered to the eye in reality.
I believe that what people call 'micro contrast' plays a role in the '3d' effect. Looking at the light house picture taken with the 35-70 you (or I) see subtle changes in the colour as the building rotate. This is in part due to the high contrast but also the ability to capture and distinguish very fine changes in colour. As a counter example the wooden sign taken with the tamron 17-50 seems to have less variance than I would expect across the wood.
Naturally subject matter, lighting and DOF play a role in the ability to emphasis these subtle shift. I believe that zeiss lens (or perhaps the coating on the lens) has the ability to emphasis these subtle shifts (another example I often seen are subtle changes in colour across a single broad leaf).
Anyways, that is my guess as to what we are calling the '3d' effect.
Grant808 wrote:
'Too much' bokeh or totally blowing out the background IMO kills the effect. You still need to see what is there as you normally would with your peripheral vision, which is more acute than most would think.
For relatively compressed landscapes, bokeh can be eliminated (or almost eliminated) and still look 3-D, because that is how it would be rendered to the eye in reality.
I completely agree. It's a bit of a fad for people to go for completely obliterative bokeh, but I think it's compositionally sloppy a lot of the time. It takes the subject completely out of context, fails to create interplay between foreground and background, wipes away suggestions of depth, and rather than looking lifelike it just looks imprecise and isolated.
I do concur with others that transitions in and out of focus help the 3D effect, but that doesn't answer Grant's and my point that you can see that 3D look even if the entire image is in perfect focus. Obviously DOF has nothing to do with it in that case.
The more I look at images described as 3D, the more I think that having real luminosity (with texture) is key.
Among what is evident, that is relative focus, overall contrast, subjects that are more three-dimensional themselves... I think there is someting that has not yet considered: relative contrast.
I'll explain it: The same way that receding objects become pogressively out of focus resulting in 3D efect, receding objects that decrease contrast progressively in a subtle way, also give this efect. I think that this could be achieved in postprocess, but you would have a hard time making selections to alter contrast in a subtle way. I also think that lenses have a minor roll in this, especially the lens that are known for being contrasty. Let me explain: Imagine an image that has flare overall. If you artificially try to restore the overall contrast as it should be, those subtles variations in relative contrast can not be recovered because they are not there, resulting in a flat image. So, those lenses with fewer elements and cleverly coated I think have this advantage. Anyway I think that the differences are subtle and not allways noticeable.
